Lib. 
BF 
108 
A5F8 


Franz 

Scientific  Producitivy  of 
American  Professional 
Psychologists 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


Ed.  /Psych. 


\os 

- 

[Reprinted  from  THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  REVIEW,  Vol.  XXIV,  No.  3,  May,  1917.] 


UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 
LIBRARY 


THE   SCIENTIFIC  PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMER- 
ICAN PROFESSIONAL  PSYCHOLOGISTS 

BY  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

Within  the  past  few  years  there  have  appeared  reviews  of 
the  progress  of  psychology  for  -different  periods  of  time.1 
That  general  progress  has  been  made  is  evident.  That  in 
America  progress  has  been  made  is  shown  by  the  inauguration 
and  rapid  increase  in  the  membership  of  the  American  Psy- 
chological Association,  by  the  foundation  of  journals  devoted 
to  the  publication  of  psychological  discussions  and  researches, 
by  the  appearance  in  numbers  of  psychological  books  and 
articles,  by  the  great  popular  interest  which  has  been  aroused, 
by  the  birth  and  growth  of  numerous  laboratories  for  teaching 
and  investigation,  by  the  creation  of  special  university  chairs 
apart  from  those  for  allied  disciplines  (especially  philosophy 
and  education),  and  by  the  establishment  of  special  research 
laboratories  for  applied  psychology.  It  is  also  pertinent  to 
remark  that  during  this  developing  period  of  psychology  there 
have  been  begun  and  continued  several  lines  of  investigation 
which,  although  not  entirely  American,  have  continued  in 
mass  and  in  importance  to  be  due  to  workers  in  this  country. 

Although  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  advance,  those 
historians  who  have  recounted  the  progress  have  dealt  with 
their  theme  in  an  impersonal  way.  The/  have  reported  the 
number  and  the  character  of  the  published  investigations, 
the  establishment  of  independent  departments,  and  the 
number  of  conferred  doctorates.  They  have  not  dealt  with 
an  equally  important  subject  which  is  germane  to  the  one 
regarding  which  they  have  written.  We  have  not  been 
informed  by  whom  the  psychological  advances  have  been 
made,  or  whether  or  not  in  view  of  the  increasing  number  of 

1  See  C.  A.  Ruckmich,  'The  Last  Decade  of  Psychology  in  Review,'  PSYCHOL. 
BULL.,  1916,  13,  109-120.  This  contains  references  to  previous  reviews  of  like  char- 
acter. 

197 

>_  dw  ±.  0  •  )  <•  * 


198  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

professional  psychologists  there  has  been  a  corresponding 
increase  in  the  number  or  in  the  value  of  the  published  in- 
vestigations. In  other  words,  although  it  is  admitted  that 
advance  has  been  made,  we  are  as  far  from  knowing  whether 
or  not  the  advance  has  been  satisfactory  and  corresponds  with 
the  number  of  psychologists. 

The  estimation  of  the  value  of  an  individual's  contributions 
has  been  attempted  from  time  to  time  and  in  a  variety  of 
ways.  There  is  the  well-known  attempt  to  grade  psychol- 
ogists by  votes  of  a  few  selected  individuals.  The  general 
results  of  this  grading  have  been  reported.1  There  has  also 
been  a  negative  grading  of  psychologists  in  general  in  the 
elections  to  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences.  Of  the  five 
so-called  psychologists  who  have  been  members,  three  at  the 
time  of  their  election  were  professors  of  philosophy  and 
primarily  interested  and  concerned  in  the  teaching  and  pub- 
lication of  philosophical  (ontological,  epistemological,  and 
logical)  doctrines.  There  has  also  been  a  continuing  selection 
(and  promotion)  of  men  for  professorships  and  other  academic 
positions,  which  selection  acts  as  a  grading  of  a  less  obvious 
kind.  The  last  kind  of  selection  brings  about  two  adverse 
conditions,  one  of  them  being  that  an  individual  selected  for 
a  position  because  of  time-serving  or  personal  recommendation 
has  automatically  acquired  a  claim  to  a  grade  to  which  his 
previous  position  and  work  did  not  apparently  entitle  him, 
the  other  being  that  because  of  this  there  has  been  a  consider- 
able amount  of  time-serving  and  inbreeding  in  some  of  our 
institutions.2 

All  of  these  methods  of  estimating  the  relative  ranks  of 
individuals  have  obvious  and  with  respect  to  even  their  tem- 
porary value  perhaps  vital  defects.  Much  the  same  may  be 

1  'American  Men  of  Science.'     Ed.  by  J.  McK.  Cattell.     2d  ed.  1910.     See  es- 
pecially pp.  537-596.    The  results  have  been  given  in  only  a  general  way;  the  names 
of  the  judges  are  not  mentioned,  and  we  must  depend  upon  the  editor's  word  that  they 
were  competent. 

2  While  it  may  not  apply  to  psychologists  it  is  not  unknown  in  scientific  circles 
that  some  individuals,  because  of  personal  charm  or  characteristics  such  as  self-appre- 
ciation and  a  hypercritical  attitude  toward  others,  have  been  able  to  attract  students 
and  have  been  able  to  persuade  others  of  their  importance  and  to  get  a  self-enhanced 
reputation  spread. 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS  1 99 

said  regarding  methods  now  in  use  for  the  determination  of 
the  value  of  a  published  research  or  other  contribution.  If 
the  different  methods  were  used  in  combination  and  subjected 
to  safeguards  respecting  individual  interests  they  would 
probably  give  better  estimates  than  have  hitherto  been  made. 
To  take  individuals  at  a  given  time  and  settle  upon  values  or 
grades  may  be  necessary,  but  it  should  be  recognized  that  the 
grades  shift  at  different  times.  The  same  holds  true  with 
regard  to  estimated  grades  or  values  of  performed  work.  The 
supposed  values  of  the  nineteenth  century  do  not  hold  for  the 
twentieth,  nor  do  those  of  today  hold  for  tomorrow.  It  is, 
however,  possible  to  determine  whether  or  not  a  given  in^- 
dividual  or  a  group  has  carried  out  some  of  its  functions,  and 
to  determine  whether  or  not  certain  individuals  have  fallen 
short  or  have  done  more  than  their  normal  or  expected  share. 
We  may  assume  as  proven  that  in  psychology  there  has  been 
satisfactory  advance  in  general,  both  in  character  and  in 
quantity  of  the  work,  and  we  may  inquire:  "By  whom  have 
the  advances  been  made,  and  in  what  manner  have  individuals 
or  groups  contributed  to  the  advance?" 

It  has  already  been  said  that  if  we  wish  to  deal  with  ab- 
solute value  it  is  not  possible  to  make  satisfactory  judgments, 
°v>  and  answers  to  the  questions  could  not  be  given.  No  one 
?*  psychologist  has  sufficient  knowledge  of  methods  and  results 
v  in  all  branches  of  psychology  to  be  considered  a  sufficiently 
expert  judge.  Nor  has  any  one  the  confidence  of  all  or  of  a 
majority  of  psychologists.  Each  judge  of  values  is  influenced 
in  making  his  judgments  by  considerations  of  training,  of 
knowledge,  and  perhaps  of  special  personal  interest.  There 
is  no  absolute  impartiality.  The  introspectionist  does  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  behavior  studies  are  not  truly  psycho- 
logical. The  behaviorist  may  reply  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  the  introspection  that  is  talked  about  so  much.  He 
who  does  not  hesitate  to  teach  and  write  about  the  functions 
of  the  parts  of  the  nervous  system  may  never  have  performed 
or  seen  any  of  the  classical  cerebral  experiments;  by  some 
psychologists  the  realm  of  the  abnormal  has  never  been  visited 
and  by  them  it  is  known  only  like  uncharted  parts  in  a  geog- 


200  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

raphy;  and  the  remainder  of  applied  psychology-  is  for  many 
like  a  prostitute  whose  acquaintance  is  not  desired  and  who  is 
to  be  shunned  because  of  fear  of  infection. 

Notwithstanding  the  limitations  of  value  of  individual 
opinion,  much  might  be  gained  by  taking  a  consensus  of 
opinion  of  those  of  divergent  special  interests  and  of  those 
who  are  admitted  to  be  fair  jurymen.1  But  we  can  also  do 
something  very  definite  by  determining  that  a  certain  in- 
dividual has  or  has  not  made  any  published  contribution 
towards  psychological  advance.2  This  is  a  comparatively 
easy  method  giving  positive  results.  It  admits  of  little  or 
no  discussion  of  a  judge's  partiality,  it  rests  solely  upon  the 
admission  of  published  material  as  the  facts  with  which  to  deal. 
We  may  also  determine  that  one  has  contributed  by  books, 
or  by  the  publications  of  investigations,  or  by  any  other  means 
which  we  may  select.  And  there  is  also  the  possibility  of 
answering  the  question,  "Has  the  progress,  as  measured  by  the 
number  of  publications,  corresponded  with  the  number  of 
individuals  who  have  become  professional  psychologists?"3 

1  Not  related  academically  to  the  individuals  to  be  judged,  supplied  with  all  the 
data  respecting  the  individuals  (not  with  only  a  part  as  was  done  in  Cattail's  'American 
Men  of  Science'  classification),  and  of  sufficiently  diverse  individual  interests  to  form 
a  jury  representative  of  all  branches  of  psychology. 

2  There  is  little  possibility  of  determining  the  value  to  psychology  of  the  indi- 
vidual's college  or  university  teaching.     Some  indication  might  be  obtained  by  the  de- 
termination of  the  academic  antecedents  of  psychologists  and  of  those  who  have  taken 
advanced  courses  in  psychology  but  who  have  not  become  professional  psychologists. 
This  does  not  mean  the  determination  of  the  number  of  conferred  doctorates.     It  is 
often  forgotten  that  the  interest  of  the  individual  has  been  created  before  he  has  known 
of  the  possibility  of  advanced  work,  and  the  doctorates  give  in  the  main  only  a  clue 
to  the  institutions  which  are  recommended  by  those  who  have  created  the  interest,  or 
which  are  selected  because  of  material  advantages.     Another  method  of  determining 
the  value  of  the  individual  teacher  would  be  that  of  estimating  the  average  value  and 
the  amount  of  published  work  which  his  students  put  forth  after  leaving  him.     Not  all 
of  their  subsequent  work  is  due  to  his  influence  but  an  estimate  could  be  made. 

3  The  consideration  of  these  matters  has  been  somewhat  forced  upon  me  in  con- 
nection with  editorial  duties  during  the  past  few  years,  since  it  was  necessary  to  know 
what  lines  of  work  were  being  investigated  and  by  whom.     During  a  longer  period  of 
time  I  have  not  infrequently  been  asked  to  offer  suggestions  regarding  possible  candi- 
dates for  positions,  and  having  had  very  few  students  fitted  for  such  positions,  I  have 
taken  the  opportunity  to  recommend  those  who  have  exhibited  some  accomplishment 
(publication)  rather  than  those  who  were  known  to  me  as  individuals  of  'promise'  in 
their  advanced  work.    The  results  of  some  of  these  casual  inquiries  regarding  accom- 
plishment were  so  different  from  what  I  had  expected  that  it  led  to  the  consideration 
of  a  larger  group. 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS  2OI 

We  have  available  for  the  purpose  well-known  yearly  bib- 
liographies, and  the  present  article  has  been  made  possible 
because  of  them.  The  membership  list  of  the  American 
Psychological  Association  was  consulted  to  obtain  a  list  of 
our  'professional'  psychologists.  Since  membership  in  the 
Association  is  not  limited  to  those  who  are  instructors  or 
professors  of  psychology,  only  those  whose  official  positions 
consisted  solely  in  relation  to  psychology  were  considered  to 
be  the  professional  psychologists.1  Since  those  few  who  hold 
only  research  positions  can  not  be  dealt  with  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  teachers,  I  decided  to  omit  their  names  from  the  list 
to  be  investigated.  This  left  87  names,  of  which  three  were 
omitted  because  of  the  lack  of  certain  data  which  I  thought 
essential.  The  84  individuals  represent  48  institutions,  45  as 
professors,  26  as  assistant,  associate  or  adjunct  professors, 
and  13  as  instructors.  The  academic  titles  mean  little  but 
they  are  mentioned  only  to  indicate  the  range  or  the  number 
of  departments  of  psychology.  Five  individuals  were  con- 
nected with  one  institution,  four  with  another,  there  were 
three  in  each  of  nine  institutions,  there  were  two  in  each  of 
eleven,  and  one  in  each  of  twenty-six  institutions.  Half  of  the 
men  had  received  their  doctorate  during  the  decade  as  follows: 
1906,  2;  1908,  6;  1909,  6;  1910,  4;  1911,  2;  1912,  10;  1913,  7; 

1914,  4;  1915,  i. 

Since  my  immediate  interests  have  been  connected  with 
recent  publications  I  selected  the  past  ten  years,  1906  to 

1915,  inclusive,  and  have  tabulated  the  contributions  of  each 
of  the  84  individuals  for  each  year.     The  contributions  which 
have  been  listed  were  found  in  the  PSYCHOLOGICAL  INDEX.Z 

1  The  1916  membership  list  was  used.  This  contains  the  titles  of  positions  as 
supplied  by  the  members,  and  is  presumably  correct.  I  am  convinced  that  some  of  the 
titles  are  incorrect,  but  the  mistakes  are  relatively  unimportant.  I  have  not  gone 
beyond  the  official  returns.  Some  professional  psychologists  who  are  not  members  of 
the  Association  are  not  included.  Some  of  them  are  known  to  the  writer,  but  it  seemed 
unfair  to  include  them,  since  they  are  not  members  of  the  national  body  of  professional 
psychologists. 

*  This  bibliography  does  not  give  references  to  all  of  the  publications  of  psychol- 
ogists, some  contained  in  inaccessible  periodicals  are  not  given,  some  which  are  not 
psychological  are  not  noted,  but  the  failure  to  list  all  the  psychological  publications  of 
any  one  individual  rests  solely  with  that  individual,  since  the  INDEX  asks  that  omissions 


202  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

The  different  kinds  of  contributions  have  been  listed  under 
the  following  titles:  Monographs,  Original  Articles,  Discus- 
sions, Books,  General  Reviews,  Reports  of  Meetings.  A  few 
translations  of  American  books  into  foreign  languages  were 
omitted,  on  the  ground  that  the  original  authors  had  already 
made  the  contribution  and  the  work  of  translation  was  that  of 
another.  Translations  of  foreign  books  into  English  were 
also  omitted  from  consideration.  In  some  cases  it  is  difficult 
to  decide  whether  a  certain  publication  is  a  discussion  or  an 
original  article,  in  other  cases  whether  a  publication  be  an 
original  article  or  a  monograph,  or  a  monograph  or  a  book. 
Some  periodicals  publish  long  articles  which  in  other  series 
would  be  published  as  monographs,  but  they  have  been  dealt 
with  as  they  stood.  When  doubt  arose  as  to  the  character  of 
the  publication  the  contributor  was  given  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt.1  The  inclusion  of  general  reviews  and  reports  of 
meetings  may  need  justification.  They  have  appeared  to  me 
to  be  legitimate  methods  of  advancing  psychology  because 
they  may  create  interest  to  investigate  certain  matters  or  give 
facts  to  others  which  would  not  ordinarily  be  discovered,  etc. 
Their  value,  however,  must  be  considerably  less  than  those  of 
publications  containing  the  results  of  personal  investigations. 
Somewhat  similarly  with  books,  since  they  are  largely  com- 
pilations of  the  work  of  others. 

Table  I.  gives  the  results  of  the  examination  of  the  INDEX 
for  the  individuals  and  the  decade  under  consideration. 
Here  there  are  shown  the  numbers  of  each  kind  of  publication 
for  each  year  and  for  the  ten-year  period.  It  will  be  seen  that 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  lean  years  (1907,  1914)  the  number 

and  corrections  be  supplied.  A  few  mistakes  were  noted,  when  they  were  obvious 
they  were  taken  account  of  in  the  tabulations.  The  tabulations  by  years  are  not  always 
exact  on  account  of  the  inability  of  the  INDEX  compilers  to  secure  all  the  references  for  a 
particular  year  at  the  time  of  publication,  but  titles  omitted  in  one  year  are  found  in 
the  next  number. 

1  That  is,  as  will  be  noted  below,  an  artificial  value  was  assigned  to  each  kind  of 
publication,  and  when  doubt  arose  the  higher  value  was  assigned.  At  the  same  time  a 
'joint'  article,  etc.,  was  assigned  to  both  individuals,  and  given  in  each  case  its  full 
value.  I  was  at  first  inclined  to  reduce  the  article  value  for  'minor  contributions,' 
but  I  concluded  to  let  the  above  consideration  hold.  The  recent  publication  of  the 
Proc.  Nat.  Acad.  of  Sciences  was  another  difficult  matter.  The '  articles '  in  that  journal 
are  in  reality  abstracts  or  summaries  (Auto-re j 'crate). 


PRODUCTIFITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS 


203 


TABLE  I 

KINDS  OF  PUBLISHED  CONTRIBUTIONS  OF  PROFESSIONAL  PSYCHOLOGISTS  FOR  THE 
DECADE,  1906-1915,  INCLUSIVE 


1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

Totals 

Monographs  

I 

•3 

2 

2 

5 

e 

5 

IO 

6 

6 

45 

Articles  

l6 

3* 

41 

4.Q 

4-2 

AA 

59 

58 

3Q 

76 

4.Q2 

Discussions  

7 

4. 

e 

7 

2 

8 

Q 

12 

Q 

i 

66 

Books  

2 

I 

IO 

6 

•3 

6 

8 

e 

9 

5 

55 

Reviews  

4 

I 

•» 

2Q 

•42 

2C 

?6 

•2-2 

161 

Reports  

I 

o 

•i 

I 

•2 

2 

4. 

C 

•J2 

Totals  

61 

45 

68 

70 

60 

98 

116 

112 

93 

128 

851 

of  research  articles  and  monographs  has  not  differed  very 
greatly  from  year  to  year  and  there  is  a  fairly  gradual  increase. 
There  is  a  slight  increase  in  1912  and  1913  over  the  preceding 
years  and  a  greater  increase  in  1915  over  1913  and  1912. 
The  notable  decrease  in  1914  is  not  explained.1  It  may  be 
that  the  increase  of  interest  in  the  subject  of  tests  is  re- 
sponsible, those  who  had  taken  up  this  line  of  work  being 
occupied  in  1913  and  1914  with  the  accumulation  of  facts 
which  were  published  in  191 5-2  When  we  look  at  the  yearly 
totals  we  note  that  the  increase  began  in  1911,  and  this  was 
coincident  with  the  inauguration  of  the  series  of  general 
reviews  in  the  PSYCHOLOGICAL  BULLETIN. 

Table  II.  shows  the  distribution  of  the  contributors  over 
the  ten-year  period.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  first 
five  years  are  almost  constant  in  number  of  contributors  and 
that  the  increase  in  the  number  of  contributors  has  taken 

1 A  writer  in  the  New  York  Times  book  review  supplement  has  mentioned  that  in 
general  literature  1914  was  a  lean  year.  The  reason  is  not  obvious  in  that  case  or  in 
the  case  of  our  psychological  publications,  since  the  European  war  could  not  have  its 
effect  on  production  until  very  late  in  the  year.  In  connection  with  psychological 
journals  this  effect  should  have  been  more  noticeable  in  1915  if  it  existed  because  of 
the  war. 

2  Ruckmich  reports  over  800  original  articles  for  the  decade  1905-1914.  Probably 
the  number  in  1905  was  nearer  that  for  1906  than  that  for  1915  of  the  present  table. 
On  that  assumption  we  would  have  about  500  titles  of  original  articles  and  monographs 
for  that  decade  by  professional  psychologists.  Not  all  of  these  have  appeared  in  the 
magazines  listed  by  Ruckmich,  and  in  comparison  with  the  'over  800'  noted  by 
Ruckmich  it  is  apparent  that  fully  3/8  of  the  grand  total  was  contributed  by  the 
non-professional  psychologists,  or  by  those  whose  loyalty  was  divided  between  psy- 
chology and  philosophy,  education,  etc. 


204 


SHEPHERD  1VOKY  FRANZ 


TABLE  II 

GROUPING  OF  PROFESSIONAL  PSYCHOLOGISTS  ACCORDING  TO  YEARLY  NUMBER  OF 
PUBLICATIONS,  FOR  THE  DECADE,  1906-1915,  INCLUSIVE 


1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

I  contribution  

1C 

16 

12 

II 

17 

14 

2O 

17 

19 

?8 

2  contributions  

IO 

7 

8 

8 

8 

9 

13 

13 

13 

12 

3  contributions  

•» 

i 

5 

6 

3 

7 

5 

5 

8 

6 

4  contributions  

o 

o 

i 

2 

2 

0 

2 

5 

2 

6 

5  contributions  

2 

o 

i 

I 

2 

6 

I 

3 

2 

i 

6  contributions  

o 

i 

o 

2 

O 

o 

2 

2 

I 

2 

7  or  more  contributions  

I 

o 

2 

O 

o 

2 

4 

I 

O 

2 

Totals  

31 

27 

29 

3° 

32 

38 

47 

46 

45 

57 

place  during  the  past  five  years.  The  greatest  number  of 
contributors  is  found  in  1915,  the  year  of  the  greatest  number 
of  contributions.  This  table  also  shows  what  may  be  termed 
the  scientific  activities  of  psychologists  for  it  gives  the  number 
of  publications  of  groups  of  individuals.  For  the  past  five 
years  about  30  per  cent,  of  those  who  contributed  published 
three  or  more  articles,  etc.,  each  year.  This  is,  of  course, 
not  to  be  taken  to  mean  that  the  same  individual  did  this 
from  year  to  year,  although  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the 
tabulation  of  the  material  indicates  that  the  man  who  does 
it  one  year  is  more  apt  to  repeat  with  more  than  a  single  con- 
tribution for  the  following  years. 

Since  not  all  of  the  individuals  on  our  list  have  been,  nor 
could  they  be  expected  to  be,  active  in  publication  during  the 
whole  of  the  decade  it  is  of  interest  to  compare  the  figures 
which  are  given  in  Table  II.  with  the  examination  of  the 
years  of  the  doctorate  or  other  higher  degree  which  is  held. 
There  were  42  individuals  who  had  obtained  their  higher 
degree  anterior  to  I9O6.1  The  other  42  could  not  be  expected 
to  publish  work  before  their  doctorate,  although  some  did  so. 
Counting  the  date  of  the  doctorate  as  the  date  when  publi- 
cation might  reasonably  be  expected,  the  numbers  of  indi- 
viduals expected  to  publish  were  obtained  by  adding  the  new 
doctors  to  the  original  42  at  the  beginning  of  the  decade.  It 
has  already  been  mentioned  that  some  published  before  the 
doctorate,  the  number  being  14  (out  of  a  total  of  42),  and  a 
few  published  more  than  one  article. 

1  Two  individuals  on  the  list  hold  the  Master's  degree  only. 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS 


205 


When  now  we  compare  the  number  of  expected  contri- 
butors with  the  actual  number  of  contributors  we  find  an 
interesting  condition.  Table  III.  gives  the  data.  Although 
the  number  of  expected  contributors  increased  during  the 
first  five  years  the  yearly  number  of  actual  contributors 
did  not  increase.  The  increase  in  contributors  came 
during  the  second  half  of  the  decade,  but  the  percentage  of 
expected  contributors  who  published  is  the  same  (68  per  cent.) 
at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end,  there  being  a  decrease  in  the 
percentage  up  to  the  year  1910  and  an  increase  thereafter. 
If  we  separate  out  those  contributions  which  are  intended  to 
convey  new  facts  or  new  interpretations,1  which  would  limit 
us  mainly  to  articles  and  monographs,  we  find  an  even  more 

TABLE  III 

THE  PUBLICATION  ACTIVITIES  OF  PROFESSIONAL  PSYCHOLOGISTS  FOR  THE  DECADE, 
1906-1915,  INCLUSIVE:  THE  NUMBERS  OF  EXPECTED  CONTRIBUTORS,  OF  ACTUAL 
CONTRIBUTORS,  OF  THOSE  CONTRIBUTING  ARTICLES  AND  MONOGRAPHS,  AND 
THOSE  CONTRIBUTING  PREVIOUS  TO  DOCTORATE 


1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

I9X3 

1914 

1915 

Expected  contributors  

4.4. 

4-4 

co 

r6 

60 

6? 

72 

70 

Ri 

84 

Actual  contributors  

7O 

?6 

•>6 

?8 

20 

77 

4.1 

4.C 

4.C 

r? 

Contributors  of  articles  and  monographs  
Contributors    previous    to    doctorate    (addi- 
tional)   

28 
i 

24 

i 

*3 
3 

26 

2 

28 

3 

27 
I 

30 

4 

34 

i 

35 
o 

40 

o 

interesting  comparison.  At  the  beginning  of  the  decade 
there  was  a  total  of  44  individuals  expected  to  contribute. 
Of  this  number  28  made  contributions  of  articles  and  mono- 
graphs (64  per  cent.).  The  percentage  (actual  contributors 
in  relation  to  expected  contributors)  decreased  in  the  follow- 
ing years  as  follows:  55,  46,  46,  47,  44,  42,  43,  42,  48.  The 
contributions  anterior  to  the  doctorate  by  those  who  con- 
tributed previous  to  their  doctorate  are  not  included  in 
these  calculations.  It  is  to  be  observed,  therefore,  that  the 
percentage  of  original  contributors  has  decreased  and  the 
percentage  of  total  contributors  at  first  decreased  and  later 
reached  its  original  figure.  The  great  differences  in  the  per- 
centages from  1911  to  1915  inclusive  are  to  be  understood 

1  It  is  not  intended  to  say  that  books,  discussions,  reports  or  reviews  do  not 
contain  new  facts  and  new  explanations,  but  that  they  are  less  apt  to  do  so. 


206  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

primarily  as  the  result  of  the  publication  of  general  reviews 
and  an  apparent  satisfaction  of  the  authors  of  these  reviews 
in  their  accomplishment. 

The  subject  of  books  deserves  a  separate  paragraph. 
These  were  mainly  the  work  of  the  group  of  older  men,  for  of 
the  55  books  which  have  been  published  in  the  decade  only 
five  have  been  written  by  those  whose  doctorates  were  granted 
in  1906  and  subsequently.  Two  men  were  responsible  for 
one  book  each,  two  for  two  books  each,  four  for  three  books 
each,  one  for  four  books,  and  one  for  fifteen  books.  The  years 
of  publication  of  the  55  books  are  shown  in  Table  I. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  increase  in  the 
expected  contributors  owing  to  the  granting  of  the  doctorate. 
The  original  42  names  have  had  added  to  them  an  equal 
number.  Of  these  additional  42,  14  published  previous  to 
the  doctorate.  The  first  publication  after  the  doctorate,  in 
most  cases  dissertations  or  parts  of  dissertations,  of  18  was 
made  in  the  year  of  the  doctorate,  of  10  the  first  publication 
was  in  the  year  following  the  doctorate,  of  9  in  the  second 
year,  of  i  in  the  third  year,  of  2  in  the  fourth  year,  and  of  I 
in  the  fifth  year  after  the  granting  of  the  doctorate.  No 
publication  by  one  who  received  the  doctorate  in  1913  had 
been  made  up  to  and  including  1915.  These  figures  show  that 
either  our  means  of  publication  are  insufficient,  or  that  the 
dissertations  presented  in  partial  satisfaction  of  the  doctorate 
are  not  nearly  ready  for  (or  are  not  worthy  of)  publication, 
or  both.1 

The  42  individuals  who  had  received  the  doctorate  prior 
to  I9o62  might  each  have  contributed  something  in  each  of  the 
ten  years  under  consideration,  but  only  seven  did  so.  Seven 
others  contributed  in  9  of  the  ten  years;  4  in  8;  4  in  7;  6  in  6; 
I  in  5;  2  in  4;  3  in  3;  2  in  2;  2  in  only  one  of  the  years;  and  4 
had  no  publications.  Those  who  received  the  doctorate  in 
1906  and  subsequently  can  not  be  dealt  with  in  the  same  man- 

1  It  might  be  well  for  university  authorities  to  deal  a  little  more  strictly  with  the 
matter  of  publication.  The  publication  of  a  dissertation  in  part  or  as  a  whole  is  the 
only  evidence  to  the  world  outside  of  the  particular  university  that  the  individual  has 
shown  a  capacity  for  investigation,  one  of  the  main  doctorate  requirements  in  all  in- 
stitutions of  which  I  have  knowledge. 

8  Including  the  two  who  have  not  taken  the  doctorate. 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS  207 

ner,  but  the  groups  in  accordance  with  the  percentage  of  years 
in  which  contributions  were  made,  counting  the  total  of 
years  since  the  doctorate  as  the  expected  total,  are  as  follows : 
o,  i;  from  I  to  10  per  cent.,  7;  n  to  20  per  cent,  5;  21  to  30,  4; 
31  to  40,  5;  41  to  50,  13;  51  to  60,  i ;  61  to  70,  i;  71  to  80,  3; 
100  per  cent.,  8.  The  number  of  older  men  who  averaged  at 
least  one  contribution  for  every  two  years,  or  more  often,  is 
double  that  of  the  younger  men.  The  younger  men  had 
more  than  two  thirds  of  their  number  who  did  not  publish 
as  much  as  one  contribution  for  every  two  years.  It  should 
further  be  stated  that  of  the  younger  men  placed  in  the  most 
regular  class  (100  per  cent.)  one  contributed  original  work  in 
only  one  of  8  years,  a  second  in  only  two  of  6  years,  a  third  in 
six  of  7  years,  and  a  fourth  in  two  of  3  years.  The  other  4 
contributed  an  article  or  monograph  in  each  of  the  expected 
years.  Of  the  older  men  in  the  100  per  cent,  class,  one  failed 
to  report  original  work  in  only  one  of  the  ten  years,  one  did 
not  report  such  work  for  two  of  the  years,  and  two  for  three 
of  the  years.  Three  contributed  at  least  one  article  or  mono- 
graph in  each  of  the  ten  years. 

Comparing  the  two  groups  we  find  that  of  the  420  ex- 
pected individual  years  of  publication  of  the  older  group  (10 
years  each  for  42  individuals)  there  were  only  257  individual 
years  of  publication,  a  percentage  of  61 ;  of  the  younger  group 
there  were  214  expected  years  and  an  actual  total  of  109,  a 
percentage  of  51.  This  difference  is  entirely  accounted  for  by 
the  long  delay  in  publication  after  the  doctorate,  for  if  the. 
delay  periods  be  subtracted  from  the  total  there  is  a  percentage 
of  6 1  for  the  younger  men.  Although  there  is  not  a  sufficient 
number  of  years  to  make  the  conclusion  certain,  the  figures 
would  lead  to  the  belief  that  when  the  younger  men  start 
there  is  not  a  great  difference  in  total  productivity  between 
them  and  the  older  men.  My  impression  previous  to  tabu- 
lation was  the  reverse,  probably  because  of  some  notable 
examples  of  productivity  of  the  older  men.  The  latter  is 
counterbalanced  by  the  fact  that  there  are  five  of  our  pro- 
fessional psychologists,  four  of  the  older  group  and  one  of  the 
younger  group  (the  latter  case  mentioned  above),  who  have 


208 


SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 


not  published  anything  worthy  of  citation  in  the  PSYCHO- 
LOGICAL INDEX  in  ten  years. 

The  individual  differences  which  have  been  mentioned  are 
better  shown  when  we  compare  the  totals  and  yearly  averages 
for  the  individuals  of  the  groups.  It  would  not  be  expedient 
to  mention  names  of  individuals,  or  to  designate  them  in 
recognizable  terms,  so  that  we  must  fall  back  upon  generalities 
of  individual  differences.  Of  the  older  group  there  are  four 
who  did  not  make  a  scientific  contribution  of  such  a  character 
or  in  such  a  journal  as  to  be  deemed  worthy  of  mention  in 
the  INDEX  in  the  decade;  there  is  only  one  of  the  younger 
group.  In  addition  the  contributions  of  one  of  the  older 

TABLE  IV 

DISTRIBUTION  OF  PROFESSIONAL  PSYCHOLOGISTS  ACCORDING  TO  THE  NUMBERS  OF 
CONTRIBUTIONS  IN  THE  DECADE,  1906-1915,  INCLUSIVE 


Number  of  Publications 

Total  Publications 

Articles  and  Monographs 

Older 

Younger 

Older 

Younger 

O  

4 
H 

12 

5 
7 

I 

35 
4 
i 
i 

16 
16 

4 
I 

I 

38 
2 
I 
O 

I  tO  IO  

II  tO  2O  

21  to  30  

3  1  and  over  

TABLE  V 

COMPARISON  OF  TOTALS  OF  PSYCHOLOGICAL  CONTRIBUTIONS  BY  THE  OLDER  AND 

YOUNGER  GROUPS  OF  PROFESSIONAL  PSYCHOLOGISTS  FOR  THE  DECADE, 

1906-1915,  INCLUSIVE 


Articles 

Mono- 
graphs 

Books 

Discus- 
sions 

General 
Reviews 

Reports 

Totals 

Older  

•260 

TO 

CO 

re 

TOO 

18 

62O 

Younger  

123 

26 

c 

I  J 

C2 

T/t 

2.11 

group  consisted  exclusively  of  the  class  of  general  reviews  and 
reports.  The  accompanying  tables  show  the  distribution 
of  the  men  in  accordance  with  their  scientific-literary  pro- 
ductivity. In  Table  IV.  there  are  shown  the  numbers  of 
individuals  in  each  group  in  relation  to  the  total  number  of 
publications  and  in  relation  to  the  publications  of  articles 
and  monographs.  In  Table  V.  there  are  shown  the  different 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS  209 

kinds  of  publications  (articles,  monographs,  books,  etc.) 
according  to  the  groups.  The  average  total  number  of  con- 
tributions for  the  decade  by  the  older  men  is  14.8,  for  the 
younger  men  it  is  5.5;  the  average  of  articles  and  monographs 
by  the  older  men  is  9.2,  and  by  the  younger  men  only  3.5. 
These  figures  may  be  somewhat  misleading  if  taken  as  they 
stand,  on  account  of  the  difference  in  the  total  number  of 
years  that  might  be  expected  for  scientific  publication.  The 
total  years  for  the  older  group  has  already  been  said  to  be 
420  (42  individuals  for  10  years),  and  214  for  the  younger 
group.  When  the  comparison  is  made  of  total  publications 
and  of  original  (monograph  and  article)  publications  of  the 
older  group  and  of  the  younger  group  in  relation  to  the  ex- 
pected number  of  years  it  is  also  found  that  the  older  group 
outranks  the  younger.  Thus  the  individual  yearly  average 
for  total  contributions  for  the  older  group  is  1.5,  and  only  i.i 
for  the  younger  group;  and  the  individual  yearly  averages  for 
articles  and  monographs  are  respectively  .92  and  .69  for  the 
older  and  the  younger  men. 

It  is  interesting  to  speculate  on  the  reasons  for  these  dif- 
ferences. Doubtless  in  most  institutions  the  younger  men 
are  employed  a  greater  part  of  the  time  in  preparation  of 
materials  for  the  laboratory  work  of  students  and  in  the 
grading  of  themes,  etc.  In  the  smaller  and  less  well  endowed 
institutions  there  is  less  aid  for  the  prosecution  of  investiga- 
tions, and  if  aid  can  be  obtained  it  takes  an  exorbitant 
amount  of  time  to  get  the  administrative  machinery  in 
running  order.  At  the  same  time  the  younger  group  has  to 
take  considerable  time  in  the  preparation  of  material  for  their 
courses  of  instruction,  and  they  are  more  frequently  called 
upon  to  act  as  subjects  or  assistants  for  other  research  workers. 
On  the  whole  the  older  group  has  the  advantage  of  long  estab- 
lished policies,  of  equipment,  and  of  professional  and  me- 
chanical assistance.  At  the  same  time  the  labor  of  teaching 
is  correspondingly  less  on  account  of  the  previous  experiences. 
Perhaps  if  we  should  compare  the  work  of  the  older  group,  or 
of  as  many  of  them  as  held  positions  in  the  decade  of  1891 
to  1900,  with  that  of  the  present  younger  group  we  should 
not  find  as  great  differences  as  now  exist. 


210  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

On  account  of  the  differences  in  time  opportunity  it  is  to 
be  expected  that  the  younger  group  would  publish  less  in  total 
and  that  the  individual  total  would  be  less  than  many  of 
those  of  the  older  group.  Thus  we  find  that  nearly  one  half 
(19)  of  the  older  group  reached  or  exceeded  the  average  of  1.5 
publications  per  year,  and  that  only  one  third  (12)  of  the 
younger  group  equalled  or  exceeded  the  yearly  average  for 
that  group  (.5  publications  per  year).  Table  IV.  gives  the 
results  of  the  groupings.  This  shows  that  more  than  one 
half  of  the  older  men  averaged  one  publication  per  year, 
seven  having  more  than  three  per  year  The  figures  for  the 
younger  group  must  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  total  yearly 
expectation  (214  instead  of  420).  Each  individual  should  be 
considered  in  relation  to  the  total  of  his  expected  years  of 
publication.  Thus  the  six  individuals  of  the  younger  group 
who  exceeded  ten  publications  had  a  total  publication  ex- 
pectation of  44  years.  The  total  of  publications  was  124, 
which  gives  a  yearly  average  less  than  3. 

The  data  with  regard  to  the  character  of  the  publications 
of  the  two  groups  are  given  in  Table  V.  The  difference  in 
the  number  of  books  has  already  been  mentioned.  Mono- 
graphs are  apparently  the  prerogative  of  the  younger  man, 
the  newly  created  doctor,  for  he  has  in  proportion  to  the 
expected  years  two  and  one  half  times  as  many  as  his  older 
colleague.  The  older  men  publish  33  per  cent,  more  articles, 
as  has  been  mentioned,  they  take  part  in  more  controversies 
as  judged  by  the  number  of  discussions,  and  they  contribute 
an  equal  share  of  the  general  reviews.  With  regard  to  the 
last  the  remark  may  be  necessary  that  the  general  review  is 
most  frequently  due  to '  request'  and  not  infrequently  a  request 
to  the  elder  is  declined  in  favor  of  a  younger  colleague. 

Since  the  different  kinds  of  contributions  are  so  varied  no 
direct  comparison  may  be  made  of  individuals  except  in  terms 
such  as  have  already  been  used  (total  number  of  contribu- 
tions, number  of  monographs  and  articles,  and  the  relation  of 
these  to  the  expected  years  of  publication).  An  indirect 
comparison  may,  however,  be  made  if  we  assign  to  the  differ- 
ent classes  of  publications  an  arbitrary  numerical  value.  This 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS  2 1 1 

must  be  very  arbitrary  on  account  of  the  impossibility  of 
making  good  comparisons  of  values,  as  has  already  been  ex- 
plained.    It  is  also  to  be  kept  in  mind  that  no  arbitrary  value 
for  a  class  can  be  defended  in  particular  cases,  for  if  we  con- 
sider two  articles  we  may  immediately  note  that  one  deals 
with  an  investigation  in  which  some  new  methods  have  been 
used  and  the  analysis  of  factors  appears  to  be  well  wrought 
out,  and  we  may  also  find  that  the  second  consists  of  a  con- 
firmation of  previous  work  by  the  use  of  the  same  methods 
which  had  previously  been  used.     Even  in  two  articles  which 
contain  new  facts  or  demonstrate  new  methods  we  may  find 
similarities  and  divergencies  of  completeness  or  of  apparent 
originality.     It  favors  the  majority  of  low  grade  (if  we  may  use 
such  a  term)  publications  if  we  assign  the  same  arbitrary  value 
to  all  of  one  class,  and  this  I  have.'done.    The  values  which  I  have 
selected  for  the  different  classes  of  publications  are  as  follows: 
Reports  of  Meetings,  i;  General  Reviews,  2;  Discussions,  3; 
Books,  6;  Articles,  6;  Monographs,  9.     No  justification  of 
these  arbitrary  values  will  be  attempted,  but  the  following 
were  in  mind  when  the  values  were  assigned.     A  discussion  is 
often  of  no  observable  value  in  adding  to  our  knowledge,  and 
scientifically  is  worse  than  useless  when  it  takes  on  the  char- 
acter of  a  personal  attack.     On  the  other  hand,  it  may  tend 
to  clear  up  doubtful  points,  bring  up  new  ways  of  viewing  a 
situation,  and  at  the  same  time  by  pointing  out  gaps  in  our 
knowledge  indicate  lines  of  investigation.     In  so  far  as   a 
discussion  does  any  of  the  latter  things  it  appeared  that  it 
has  a  real  value  beyond  that  of  a  report  of  a  meeting,  and 
since  a  discussion  also  tends  at  times  to  inter  in  a  suitable 
manner  some  supposed  facts  which  very  generally,  but  er- 
roneously, have  been  accepted  it  was  thought  worthy  of  a 
greater  value  than  that  of  a  general  review.     It  is  assumed 
that  all  of  our  psychological  discussions  are  of  the  good  char- 
acter mentioned.     Differences  exist  in  general  reviews.     Some 
are  summaries  of  a  few  contributions  of  others.     Some  give  a 
fairly  complete  account  of  current  work  with  an  evaluation 
of  the  material  and  thus  help  others  who  are  not  specializing 
in  the  subject  to  obtain   a  better  view  than  would  be  ob- 


212  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

tained  by  looking  over  the  mass  of  details  which  the  original 
sources  contain.  Some  of  the  general  reviews  which  we  are 
considering  here  may  be  worthy  of  a  higher  value  than  some 
of  the  discussions,  but  many  might  bear  a  reduction  of  the 
general  value  figure.  Here  again  it  became  necessary  to 
decide  for  the  majority  rather  than  for  the  few.  Much  the 
same  may  be  said  with  regard  to  books.  Although  the  writer 
does  not  pretend  to  have  the  specialist's  critical  ability  in 
every  branch  of  psychology  he  is  satisfied  that  many  books 
published  during  the  period  are  nothing  more  than  general 
reviews,  and  at  times  poor  ones.  Some  of  the  books  have 
brought  out  new  facts  and  explanations,  they  have  added 
considerably  to  our  psychological  advance.  But  because  of 
their  general  character  it  is  thought  that  a  value  double 
that  of  a  discussion  and  triple  that  of  a  general  review  would 
be  an  ample  average  value.  The  original,  or  research  article 
(whether  experimental  or  otherwise)  was  assigned  a  value 
equal  to  that  of  a  book,  and  the  monograph  (but  only  on 
account  of  its  length  and  supposed  completeness)  was  assigned 
a  value  fifty  per  cent,  higher.  The  remark  previously  made 
regarding  monographs,  that  some  monographs  would  be 
articles  in  other  publication  series,  is  a  point  against  such  a 
valuation,  and  the  valuation  is  not  insisted  upon.  The 
increase  in  value  is  on  the  side  of  the  younger  men,  who 
most  need  the  extra  count. 

Having  selected  the  arbitrary  values  which  have  been 
mentioned  it  becomes  possible  to  make  comparisons  of  the 
output  of  different  individuals  without  making  special  refer- 
ence of  an  identifying  character.  At  the  same  time  it 
becomes  possible  to  make  comparisons  of  the  groups  since  the 
heterogeneity  of  the  different  kinds  of  publications  has  been 
translated  into  a  homogeneity. 

The  calculation  of  the  individual  values  for  the  ten-year 
period  shows  that  the  range  is  from  zero  to  244.  This  means 
that  some  have  contributed  nothing  and  that  others  range 
from  the  zero  point  up  to  a  valuation  of  24.4  points  per  year. 
It  is  necessary  to  translate  all  the  total  valuations  of  the 
younger  group  into  'expected'  values,  or  average  yearly 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS 


213 


values  in  accordance  with  the  number  of  expected  years  of 
publication.  When  this  is  done  for  all  individuals  we  find 
that  there  is  a  general  average  of  6.7  points  per  year  for  the 
group  as  a  whole,  and  a  median  of  4.2.  When  the  five  in- 
dividuals who  have  not  contributed  even  as  much  as  a  report 
of  a  meeting  during  the  decade  are  omitted  the  average  is 
7.2  and  the  median  is  4.5.  The  distribution  of  the  84  in- 
dividuals in  respect  to  average  yearly  values  of  publications 
is  given  in  Table  VI.  Eighteen  of  the  older  group  and 
twenty-five  of  the  younger  group  are  below  the  median  of 
all  values;  22  of  the  older  and  30  of  the  younger  groups  are 
below  the  average  of  the  total.  Arranging  all  in  sequence  of 
average  yearly  values  and  dividing  into  four  equal  parts,  each 
containing  21  men,  we  find  the  following  distribution  of  the 
older  and  younger  respectively  in  the  groups  from  lowest  to 
highest:  older,  10,  7,  n,  14;  younger,  n,  14,  10,  7. 

TABLE  VI 

GROUPING    OF   PROFESSIONAL   PSYCHOLOGISTS   ACCORDING   TO   AVERAGE   YEARLY 
"VALUES"  OF  CONTRIBUTIONS  FOR  THE  DECADE,  1906-1915,  INCLUSIVE 


I.O 

Values 

and 

i.i- 

2.1- 

3-i- 

4-i- 

5-i- 

6.1- 

7.1- 

8.1- 

9.1- 

10.  1- 

'5-1- 

Under 

2.O 

3-0 

4.0 

5-o 

6.0 

7-0 

>.o 

9.0 

IO.O 

15.0 

»5-o 

Number  of  men  

9 

14 

9 

9 

9 

2 

O 

C 

C 

4. 

Q 

The  older  group  on  account  of  time,  material  equipment, 
academic  relations,  and  other  conditions  has  advantages  which 
make  it  of  special  interest.  All  of  the  individuals  had  attained 
their  higher  degrees  previous  to  1906,  about  three  quarters 
are  heads  of  departments,  and  about  the  same  number  are 
connected  with  well-equipped  and  long-established  labor- 
atories. This  group  furnished  four  individuals  who  did  not 
make  a  published  contribution  of  any  kind  to  psychological 
advancement  in  the  decade.  Six  of  the  group  contributed 
one  original  article  or  monograph  during  the  ten-year  period; 
two  contributed  two  original  contributions;  two  contributed 
three;  and  three  contributed  four.  We  have  in  this  group, 
therefore,  forty  per  cent,  who  have  not  averaged  an  original 
contribution  once  in  two  years.  Some  of  these  seventeen 


214  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

individuals  did  contribute  in  other  directions  besides  mono- 
graphs and  articles,  for  they  published  5  books,  33  general 
reviews,  2  discussions,  and  wrote  one  report  of  a  meeting. 
Besides  the  four  who  did  not  make  any  kind  of  a  contribution 
there  were  four  additional  who  made  no  contribution  beyond 
the  original  articles  and  monographs  published.  On  the 
whole  the  younger  group,  while  not  as  productive  as  the 
older,  show  better  results  with  respect  to  the  publication  of 
individuals.  Only  one  (duration  three  years)  has  not  pub- 
lished, as  is  mentioned  above.  Ten  others  have  not  published 
as  frequently  as  once  in  three  years;  there  is  a  total  of  sixteen 
who  have  not  published  as  frequently  as  once  in  two  years. 

Since  the  older  group  had  the  opportunity  to  publish  for 
ten  years  we  need  not  deal  with  averages  entirely,  but  may 
consider  totals  as  well,  on  account  of  the  homogeneity  of  the 
series.  It  is  of  interest  to  know  that  seven  of  the  group 
(17  per  cent.)  contributed  a  total  of  159  articles  and  mono- 
graphs (41  per  cent.);  the  highest  half  of  the  group  (21) 
contributed  eighty-seven  per  cent,  of  all  the  articles  and 
monographs  of  the  group  (337  articles  and  monographs). 
This  leaves  for  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  older  men  only  thirteen 
per  cent,  of  the  articles  and  monographs  published  by  the 
group. 

The  majority  of  older  men  who  have  contributed  little  in 
the  way  of  articles  and  monographs,  and  also  to  the  total, 
have  held  their  present  positions  for  many  years,  and  have 
apparently  'grown  up'  in  their  present  locations,  they  are 
located  in  some  of  our  better  endowed  institutions,  and  in 
those  with  good  laboratory  facilities,  they  have  colleagues 
teaching  in  the  same  lines,  and  they  occupy  what  may  be 
properly  called  positions  of  prominence  in  their  respective 
institutions.  They  have  not  the  apparent  disadvantages  of 
isolation,  or  of  having  to  carry  the  burden  of  the  psycho- 
logical world  upon  their  shoulders  since  there  are  colleagues 
to  help  in  teaching  and  perhaps  in  research.  But  these  are 
some  of  the  men  who  are  representing  psychology  as  a  science 
in  their  respective  university  niches.  Those  of  the  younger 
group  who  are  least  productive,  and  have  given  little  evidence 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS  2*5 

of  interest  in  psychological  advance  by  publication,  are 
mostly  located  in  the  smaller  institutions,  where  there  are  no 
colleagues  of  sufficient  training  or  productiveness  to  be  elected 
members  of  the  American  Psychological  Association.  There 
are  in  the  younger  group  exceptions  to  this,  several  notable 
cases  being  evident  when  the  list  is  inspected.  Without 
going  into  the  figures  for  total  or  original  publications,  since 
the  number  of  men  at  the  different  institutions  is  small,  it 
may  be  stated  that  those  younger  men  who  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  remain  at  a  long-established  department  have  done 
better  than  those  in  the  more  recently  created  departments. 
But  this  does  not  hold  for  particular  cases,  since  there  are 
surprising  exceptions  of  individuals  with  apparently  all  the 
advantages  which  can  be  obtained  in  the  better  endowed 
institutions  doing  little  or  nothing  which  is  prepared  for  the 
edification  of  their  scientific  colleagues. 

It  should  not  be  assumed,  and  it  is  here  stated  to  the 
contrary  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  misunderstanding, 
that  these  men  are  doing  nothing  for  psychological  advance. 
Some  may  have  editorial  duties,  some  may  conceal  themselves 
in  the  work  of  their  students,  and  some  (like  Herbert  Spencer) 
may  be  reserving  their  energies  for  some  magna  opera  which 
will  be  given  to  the  world  in  due  time.  It  seems  unlikely, 
however,  that  as  many  as  40  per  cent,  of  the  older  group  are 
engaged  in  the  accumulation  of  material  for  the  development 
of  a  cosmology,  or  of  a  system  of  psychology,  or  of  an  ex- 
haustive history  of  the  science,  or  of  other  large  projects  which 
should  not  be  laid  aside  in  favor  of  the  minor  contributions 
such  as  articles  and  monographs.  It  is  apparent  that  a  few 
of  those  who  hold  chairs  of  psychology  are  contenting  them- 
selves with  teaching  and  the  carrying  out  of  the  social  obli- 
gations which  fall  to  the  lot  of  every  scientific  man,  who  must 
meet  his  colleagues  and  take  part  in  the  life  of  the  university 
with  which  he  is  connected.  Whether  or  not  there  are  more 
psychologists  who  are  doing  these  things  than  scientific  men 
in  other  lines  can  not  now  be  determined.  And,  the  other 
view  may  be  expressed  that  those  who  are  contributing  much 
do  so  without  proper  scientific  care  and  because  of  reportorial 


21 6  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

tendencies.  The  character  of  the  work  of  many  of  our  most 
productive  men  shows  that  they  have  not  done  their  work  at 
the  expense  of  care.  But,  the  writer  feels  that  some  of  the 
so-called  'professional'  psychologists  should  be  classed  with 
dilettantes;  they  are  not  scientific  professionals  in  the  sense 
that  they  are  forging  ahead  and  that  they  are  succeeding 
because  of  their  efforts  in  scientific  work. 

Much  has  been  written  recently  about  university  positions  and  university  control; 
the  professor  always  being  the  oppressed  and  the  university  as  represented  by  the 
president  being  the  oppressor.  I  have  a  feeling  that  part  of  the  dissatisfaction  may 
be  due  to  the  'great  promise'  for  which  candidates  have  been  recommended  never 
showing  up  in  practice.  A  president  of  one  of  our  leading  institutions  has  been  criti- 
cized for  saying  that  every  man  on  the  faculty  may  be  expected  to  publish  at  least  one 
article  every  two  years.  It  may  be  that  he  had  had  experience  with  those  of  'promise' 
and  not  of  performance.  Much  has  also  been  written  about  academic  tenure,  as  if 
that  was  a  sacred  right  (or  rite),  but  the  critic  might  well  imagine  a  better  state  of 
affairs  to  follow  in  some  of  our  universities  if  there  was  a  power  of  recall  for  those 
members  of  the  faculty  who  do  not  measure  up  to  the  expected  or  to  the  average  amount 
of  performance.  If  the  present  methods  of  filling  positions,  from  the  grade  of  professor 
down  to  that  of  instructor,  be  continued  we  shall  always  have  some  of  little  or  no  ac- 
complishment (the  dilettantes)  filling  important  chairs,  especially  if  there  be  the  added 
conditions  that  promotions  be  made  as  vacancies  occur.  It  is  the  writer's  belief  that 
much  of  the  inconsistencies  would  be  eliminated  if  every  vacancy  were  advertised  as 
open  to  application,  stating  that  applicants  were  expected  to  send  in  the  accounts  of 
their  academic  careers,  copies  of  publications,  etc.,  and  that  these  would  be  graded  by 
a  non-interested  committee  of  specialists  (advisory  board)  who  would  report  to  the 
faculty  or  to  trustees  the  results  of  their  findings.  We  should  probably  escape  the 
absurdity  of  having  in  one  year  two  young  men  recommended  from  one  university  as 
'geniuses  of  the  first  water.'  This  has  happened,  and  the  writer  is  not  certain  which  is 
to  be  the  more  pitied,  the  university  which  permitted  its  'geniuses'  to  go  to  other  in- 
stitutions, or  the  universities  which  would  accept  men  who  were  recommended  as  such. 

Another  matter  may  be  worth  considering  briefly.  This 
is  the  relation  of  productivity  to  the  institutions  from  which 
the  higher  degrees  were  received.  In  pointing  to  psycho- 
logical advances  in  institutions,  we  have  hitherto  been 
content  to  mention  the  number  of  doctorates  which  have 
been  granted.  But  it  is  obvious  that  numbers  count  for 
very  little  in  progress,  unless  one  is  going  to  play  a  mass  game 
or  overrun  a  weak  nation.  What  should  be  considered  is  the 
question:  What  have  the  doctors  done  after  leaving  an  in- 
stitution? And  we  may  also  ask:  Has  the  training  which  is 
supposed  to  fit  the  man  for  research  been  effective  in  stimu- 
lating him  to  efforts  in  that  direction?  Part  of  these  ques- 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS 


217 


tions  may  be  answered  by  considering  the  performance  of 
those  granted  higher  degrees  by  different  institutions.  Of  the 
84  men  on  the  present  list  17  were  scattering  with  respect  to 
institutions,  but  the  remainder  were  distributed  over  seven 
institutions.  Only  one  institution  is  mentioned  by  name 
(Leipzig),  the  other  individual  institutions  (American)  are 
represented  by  letters.  The  17  scattering  cases  are  grouped 
together  as  'other  foreign'  and  'other  American.'  Table  VII. 

TABLE  VII 

COMPARISON  OF  PUBLICATIONS  OF  ALL  KINDS  AND  OF  ARTICLES  AND  MONOGRAPHS, 
BY  GROUPS  OF  PROFESSIONAL  PSYCHOLOGISTS,  ARRANGED  ACCORDING  TO  IN- 
STITUTIONS CONFERRING  DOCTORATES.  (Two  INDIVIDUALS  WHO  HAVE  NOT 
RECEIVED  THE  DOCTORATE  ARE  INCLUDED  UNDER  THE  INSTITUTIONS  WHICH 
CONFERRED  THEIR  HIGHER  DEGREES) 


Institutions 

Leipzig 

A 

B 

c 

D 

E 

F 

Other 
Foreign 

Other 
American 

Numbers  of  men  

8 

II 

7 

i: 

II 

8 

7 

6 

II 

Total  expected  years  

78 

70 

C.4 

132 

74. 

<;8 

4.2 

S7 

60 

All  publications: 
Total  credits  

8<CQ 

674. 

421 

884 

38l 

226 

IO3 

422 

26q 

Credits-:-  years  

II.O 

8  8 

78 

67 

c.i 

•2.O 

2.C. 

7.4 

4..C 

Range    of    average    yearly 
credits  of  individuals  .... 

Articles  and  monographs: 
Credits  

3-6- 

18.6 

603 

i-S- 
19-3 

cio 

i.i- 

23.0 

•?6o 

o.o- 

24.4 

708 

1.4- 
14.0 

312 

0.6- 
"•3 

108 

o.o- 

7-5 

96 

0.6- 
9-4 

348 

o.o- 

10.2 
222 

Credits  -f-  years  

7-7 

f 

6.5 

•> 
6.7 

5-4 

4.2 

3-4 

2.3 

j*u 
6.1 

3-7 

gives  the  numbers  of  men  from  different  institutions,  the  total 
years  under  consideration  (the  total  'expected'  years  of  all 
in  the  special  group),  the  total  credits,  the  relation  of  credits 
to  the  total  expected  years  of  publication,  and  the  minimum 
and  maximum  average  yearly  credits  by  the  individuals  in  the 
groups. 

Probably  the  total  expected  years,  rather  than  number 
of  individuals,  is  a  better  means  of  comparison  with  the  totals 
of  publications,  and  the  relation  of  these  two  are  shown  in  the 
fifth  line.  Here  it  will  be  observed  that  the  8  men  from  Leip- 
zig far  surpass  the  groups  from  the  other  universities.  They 
have  the  highest  minimum,  showing  that  each  is  publishing 
fairly  regularly,  and  although  they  are  surpassed  in  maxima 
by  three  other  institutions  this  is  largely  due  to  a  few  very 


21 8  SHEPHERD  IVORY  FRANZ 

productive  men.  The  men  from  Leipzig  have  mostly  been 
of  the  older  group,  as  indicated  by  the  average  of  expected 
years  (9.8),  but  the  average  is  not  much  greater  than  that 
(9.5  years)  for  the  group  from  Other  Foreign  Institutions. 
Leipzig  also  closely  approaches  the  total  of  C,  although  the 
number  of  men  is  only  slightly  over  half,  and  the  total  number 
of  expected  years  is  about  60  per  cent,  of  this  American 
university.  The  order  of  institutions  in  total  credits  divided 
by  expected  years  is  as  follows:  Leipzig,  A,  B,  Other  Foreign, 
C,  D,  Other  American,  E,  and  F.  When  now  we  compare 
the  performance  of  the  doctors  from  the  different  institutions 
in  relation  to  publication  of  articles  and  monographs  we  find 
the  results  shown  in  the  last  two  lines  of  Table  VII.  Here 
again  Leipzig  shows  a  great  superiority.  The  order  of  in- 
stitutions in  credits  divided  by  years  has  not  materially 
changed,  there  being  a  reversal  of  the  order  for  B  and  A.  The 
remainder  of  the  table  speaks  for  itself. 

One  matter  remains  to  be  briefly  considered.  This  is  the 
relation  of  administrative  work  to  the  carrying  on  of  scientific 
production.  Our  group  contains  five  individuals  who  have 
given  their  occupation  as  partly  that  of  dean  or  president. 
Two  of  these  individuals  notwithstanding  their  arduous 
administrative  duties  have  managed  to  carry  on  investiga- 
tions and  to  publish  the  results  of  them.  At  the  same  time 
they  have  both  for  total  and  for  original  publications  managed 
to  be  in  the  more  productive  class.  The  other  three  probably 
have  their  administrative  duties  as  reasons  for  their  relative 
non-performance.  In  the  group  there  are  also  eleven  who 
have  greater  or  less  editorial  duties  in  connection  with  the 
publication  of  periodicals.  Of  this  group  two  have  been 
below  the  average  in  performance.  Both  of  these  extra- 
scientific  duties  (administration  and  editing)  have  not  inter- 
fered with  the  production  of  an  average  amount  of  scientific 
articles  by  two  thirds  of  the  men  thus  engaged,  and  it  may 
be  that  these  added  functions  have  been  beneficial  rather  than 
the  reverse.  In  the  estimation  of  productivity  of  individuals 
editorial  functions  have  been  omitted  and  had  these  been 
added  to  the  totals  in  some  numerical  way  it  is  quite  likely 


PRODUCTIVITY  OF  AMERICAN  PSYCHOLOGISTS  219 

that  more  of  the  group  of  editors  would  have  approached  the 
top.  As  the  arrangement  now  stands,  counting  only  articles, 
books,  reviews,  etc.,  we  find  that  two  thirds  are  in  the  higher 
half  of  the  distribution,  and  of  these  most  are  in  the  higher 
quarter. 

It  is  pertinent  to  remark  that  psychology  appears  to  be 
getting  from  those  whose  chief  interests  are  not  in  its  de- 
velopment (from  the  non-professional  psychologists,  in  other 
words)  as  much  as,  if  not  more  than,  from  many  of  its  own 
men.1  From  some  of  its  own  psychology  is  receiving  much 
less  than  should  be  expected,  and  there  is,  perhaps,  some 
reason  for  the  assertion  that  "were  it  not  for  an  academic  title 
it  would  be  difficult  to  discover  the  reason  why  certain  in- 
dividuals are  called  psychologists."  In  conclusion  the  at- 
tention of  the  reader  is  called  to  the  consideration  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  action  of  certain  scientific  societies  which 
require  that  a  member  shall  retain  membership  in  them  only 
as  long  as  he  continues  to  show  an  active  interest  in  the 
advancement  of  his  science  by  publication,  provided  con- 
tinued ill-health  or  other  disabling  conditions  (old  age  and 
the  like)  do  not  prevent.2 

1 1  expect  to  deal  with  the  psychological  contributions  of  these  non-professional 
members  of  the  Association  in  another  article. 

*  A  constitutional  amendment  of  this  character  was  recommended  by  its  council 
to  the  American  Psychological  Association  at  one  of  its  meetings,  and  at  the  subsequent 
meeting  the  council  reversed  its  recommendation  (see  the  Proceedings  of  the  Associ- 
ation for  the  years  1906  and  1907). 


124HS.5 


UNIVERSITV 


ANGELES 


Y  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

-OS  ANGELES 
LIBRARY 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

:Z^I    Syracuse.  N.   Y. 
—    Stockton     Calif 


ary 


A     000  935  283     2 


